Sound forecasts of car and driver's license availability are crucial for accurate estimates of future mobility trends and the development of planning strategies. Often these forecasts ignore dynamic trends and spatial influences. Cross-sectional analysis reveals that in areas with good accessibility by alternative modes, many households live with no or only one car even if they can afford a vehicle. This study focuses on that dynamic perspective by analyzing changes in car and license availability by event history models. It uses data from the German socioeconomic panel that observes the same households for up to 25 years to estimate the hazard rates of changes between different states of license and car availability. The results show a detailed picture of socioeconomic factors such as age, sex, household characteristics, and income. In addition, the impacts of accessibility on the probability of acquiring or disposing of a car are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Prognose der deutschlandweiten Verkehrsverflechtungen 2025. ITP/BVU (FE-Nr. 96.0857/2005). München/Freiburg, Germany, April 2007.
2.
Shell PKW-Szenarien bis 2030.Fakten, Trends und Handlungsoptionen für nachhaltige Auto-Mobilität.Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH, Hamburg, Germany, 2009.
3.
MatasA., RaymondJ.-L., and RoigJ. L.Car Ownership and Access to Jobs in Spain. Transportation Research, Vol. 43A, 2009, pp. 607–617.
4.
CullinaneS.The Relationship Between Car Ownership and Public Transport Provision: A Case Study of Hong Kong. Transport Policy, Vol. 9, 2002, pp. 29–39.
5.
DargayJ. M., and HanlyM.Land Use and Mobility. Presented at 10th World Conference on Transport Research, Istanbul, Turkey, 2004.
6.
BohnetM.Influence of Land Use and Transportation System on Car Ownership. In CUPUM 07: 10th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management (Rodriguez da SilvaA. N. and de Lucas SouzaLéa Christina, eds.), School of Engineering of São Carlos, Iguacu, Brazil (CD ROM), 2007.
7.
BohnetM., and GertzC.Mode Specific Accessibility and Car Ownership. Presented at mobil.TUM 2008: International Conference on Mobility and Transport, Munich, Germany, 2008.
8.
ScheinerJ.Housing Mobility and Travel Behaviour: A Process-Oriented Approach to Spatial Mobility—Evidence from a New Research Field in Germany. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 14, 2006, pp. 287–298.
9.
CaoX.The Causal Relationship Between the Built Environment and Personal Travel Choice: Evidence from Northern California.Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-07-05. University of California, Davis, 2007.
10.
PinjariA. R., PendyalaR. M., BhatC. R., and WaddellP.Modeling the Choice Continuum.Integrated Model of Residential Location, Auto Ownership, Bicycle Ownership, and Commute Tour Mode Choice Decisions. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
11.
WoldeamanuelM. G., CyganskiR., SchulzA., and JustenA.Variation of Households’ Car Ownership Across Time: Application of a Panel Data Model. Transportation, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 371–387.
12.
BjoernerT. B., and Leth-PetersenS.Dynamic Models of Car Ownership at the Household Level. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2005, pp. 57–75.
13.
PrillwitzJ., HarmsS., and LanzendorfM.Impact of Life Course Events on Car Ownership. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1985, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 71–77.
14.
BeigeS., and AxhausenK. W.Ownership of Mobility Tools During the Life Course.Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
15.
BohnetM., and GertzC.Event History Model of Car and License Availability: How Accessibility Shapes the Acquisition and Disposal of Cars.Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
16.
FollmerR.Alltagsverkehr in Deutschland: Erhebungsmethoden—Struktur—Aufkommen—Emissionen—Trends. Presented at Mobilität in Deutschland, Berlin, 2009.
17.
ZumkellerD., ChlondB., OttmannP., KagerbauerM., and KuhnimhofT.Panel Evaluation in 2007: German Mobility Panel (MOP).University of Karlsruhe, Germany, 2008.
18.
WagnerG. G., FrickJ. R., and SchuppJ.The German Socioeconomic Panel Study (SOEP): Scope, Evolution and Enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch (Journal of Applied Social Science Studies), Vol. 127, No. 1, 2007, pp. 139–169.
19.
KrohM., and SpiessM.Documentation of Sample Sizes and Panel Attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2007).German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin, 2008.
20.
ClevesM. A.An Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata, 2nd ed. Stata Press, College Station, Tex., 2008.
21.
AllisonP. D.Discrete Time Methods for the Analysis of Event Histories. Sociological Methodology, Vol. 12, 1982, pp. 61–98.
22.
SunJ.The Statistical Analysis of Interval-censored Failure Time Data.Springer Science+Business Media Inc. (Springer-11649/Dig. Serial), New York, 2006.
23.
BlossfeldH.-P.Event History Analysis with Stata.Erlbaum, New York, 2007, p. 117ff.
24.
DecklS.Indikatoren der Einkommensverteilung in Deutschland 2003. Statistisches Bundesamt Wirtschaft und Statistik, Vol. 2006, No. 11, 2006, pp. 1178–1186.
